Is Belka a Rybka?

Mike S. · Post by **Mike S.** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:43 am

Rybka is exclusively developed by Vas Rajlich and it is a commercial product distributed by him and by Convekta.

It is not acceptable to support theft of intellectual, or software copyright, on this message board.

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:57 am

Mike S. wrote: It is not acceptable to support theft of intellectual, or software copyright, on this message board.

I agree with you.

However you refer specifically to Strelka which, if you've followed the numerous threads over time, has still not been proven irrefutably to be a clone or illegal as far as I'm aware.

Regards, Graham.

Daniel Mehrmann · Post by **Daniel Mehrmann** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:18 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Mike S. wrote: It is not acceptable to support theft of intellectual, or software copyright, on this message board.
I agree with you.

However you refer specifically to Strelka which, if you've followed the numerous threads over time, has still not been proven irrefutably to be a clone or illegal as far as I'm aware.

Regards, Graham.

There is a basic problem ! A lot of people argue heatedly how to define a clone, where are the borders and when it is illegal.

Well, these people will win in any case anyway. Why ? That's easy. We don't have any static rule in this community which would define what is a clone. We never had and have static borders for illegal stuff. These "fyling" borders will be created by the members himself.

Those of them, which asking, in this case just want to use such engines of course, but they never would say this in public or if so they are convinced in your perspective its not 100% a clone or illegal, again i pointed out we never will reach 100% in such cases, so let's go on.

This is some kind of double morality. They just say it's not 100% clear that it could be a clone or illegal, on the other hand they know there are no static rules in this community which would make it possible to say this is 100% a clone.

Finally they are lying himself with such thoughts but it works for them, so they are happy to go on with such engine.

I guess thats the most used way for people on CCRL who go on with testing such engine. (just an example)

Best,
Daniel

Thomas Mayer · Post by **Thomas Mayer** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:18 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Mike S. wrote: It is not acceptable to support theft of intellectual, or software copyright, on this message board.
I agree with you.

However you refer specifically to Strelka which, if you've followed the numerous threads over time, has still not been proven irrefutably to be a clone or illegal as far as I'm aware.

Regards, Graham.

Hi Graham,

I have no idea what more you need. The author of Strelka himself said that it is a clone as well as Vas said that it is a clone.
Of course that doesn't mean that you can't have some fun with Strelka but maybe some might rethink who they support.

Greets, Thomas

Mike S. · Post by **Mike S.** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:30 am

Correct.

It can't be true that CCC has no other choice than to give voices to robber barons and their supporters, and powerlessly watch their flagrant, ruthless activities. If this is tolerated, it could be the end of many chess software projects!

Stop it!

Christopher Conkie · Post by **Christopher Conkie** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:42 am

GenoM wrote:No, I don't know. May be you do? Please, tell.

Tell it here? No no....

If you are desperate, ask Vas.

playjunior · Post by **playjunior** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:48 am

Mike S. wrote:Correct.

It can't be true that CCC has no other choice than to give voices to robber barons and their supporters, and powerlessly watch their flagrant, ruthless activities. If this is tolerated, it could be the end of many chess software projects!

Stop it!

So just because you think it is a clone, then the author(or cloner) should not be given opportunity to argue his point? Or there should be no people that support him?
I personally have read quite some threads with engine output and stuff posted. I personally believe it's a clone. Or, let me put it other way:
I believe, that if Strelka is not a clone of Rybka, then clones do not exist

But, some people consider the evidence provided insufficient. They are free to discuss and argue. There is no formal procedure of identifying a clone, and even the opinion of majority is not a final verdict.
Besides, those "clone-not clone" threads make the best flame wars...why do you want to deprive us of fun?

Andrej Sidorov · Post by **Andrej Sidorov** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:10 am

correlation table

1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit – Strelka 1.8 32-bit 68.7
2 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit – Loop 12.32 66.8

Isn't Loop a clone?

ozziejoe · Post by **ozziejoe** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:20 am

irrefutability is a bit of a high standard, isn't it graham.

El Gringo · Post by **El Gringo** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:40 pm

Andrej Sidorov wrote:correlation table

1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit – Strelka 1.8 32-bit 68.7
2 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit – Loop 12.32 66.8

Isn't Loop a clone?

Hi,

You certainly have a point here

I don't have this verison of Loop so i can't do my testsuite
like i did with strelka to be sure it was a rybka1.0 clone or at least emulating Rybka's behaviour.

There is only one thing that is very strange to me. Some weaker engines (LIST5.12 , first Rybka private version) and maybe others became very strong after the release of the source code of Fruit 2.1 !?!? So all the credits belong to Fabien letouzey (IMHO).
The question off-course is, is studying and using the ideas of the fruit 2.1 source code illegal, or immoral (whitout naming the original author).

Best
Johan

Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

What is a clone ? defines, borders, lys and moral

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Belka Settings please help me

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?

Re: Is Belka a Rybka?